Trump will ban twitter. eye for an eye, sword by the sword

How?

executive order. or signing a bill passed by Congress

DOJ and right wing media will personally go after the execs too

Yes i said it would include after the fact and you could it somethign other than 'publisher' if you like.

If we agree it's holding the sites responsible for their content then we agree.

That sounds unconstitutional. What is the actual bill?

if by 'responsible' you mean it will be 'messy' and probably largely meaningless then yes.

There simply is no effective way outside real time advanced AI (that does not exist yet) to moderate real time discussions. The only thing you can do is say 'you must review and take it down within X days' and X days is almost certain to be longer than it what it takes them now since they are already doing that after the fact by following their own TOS.

"our rule is not to be bound by the 1st amendment"

"trump can't do that it's unconstitutional"

oh the irony

I can translate this into real talk: there are complicated issues here, but most of you morons shiting on about "free speech" (looking at you, chez), are too ****ing stupid to get them.

You have no idea what Trump will do as well I see.

The first amendment itself gives twitter the right to do that.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

How to destroy the stock market and wreck the country with this 1 simple trick.

That appears to fall afoul of Kirchhoff's Law. Perhaps we should repeal it.

How can trump saying is for free speech if he bans Twitter ?
He will act exactly like a Commie dictator like China or Russia .

This 1st amendment:
“Twitter shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Ya you nailed it as the Founders had twitter specifically in mind when they wrote it clearly and it was never about restricting what gov't could do, most people get that wrong. It was really about ensuring what Companies could not do. The 1st was really a way for gov't to control Corporate and citizen speech.

Checkmate citizens, the gov't got ya!

I know that d2 likes to accuse me of British-style understatement, so I'll offer another observation: There may be some gaps in Truth's understanding of how government works.

[stifles da giggles]

Anyone who's under 30 and has really come of age wrt political issues under Trump has a lot of catching up to do.

those corporations dont matter. only the few large corporate cartels is what drives society. someone as erudite as you claim should understand that.

Good post.

I would start with oversight and transparency. With social media we have effectively finished the privatization of the public square. This isn't a completely new development, but rather a steady flow of technology going from the printing press, through radio and television and now social media has made it a reality. Meanwhile our constitutional rights are largely from an era where the actual public square and a still very limited use of the printing press was the name of the game.

This is hopeless. It's like trying to land a modern airliner at an airport that uses carrier pigeons, oil lanterns and draft horses for technology.

As a minimum starting point we need oversight and transparency into the algorithms that decide how this modern public square functions. I don't see this as intruding on property rights. For example when it comes to land development, even if we rely on private companies to develop an area, we generally don't think it is a good idea to give them complete control of how the infrastructure or logistics of it should work. We'd reserve control over the critical aspects of waterlines, sewers, power lines, roads and public spaces (to name a few).

Nobody bats an eyelid at the idea that a brick could be privately owned, just like nobody bats an eyelid that a computer can be privately owned. But most of us would probably still be miffed if a private company could just build a wall and checkpoints around your neighborhood without talking to anyone, applying for a permit or adhering to any kind of regulation. But this is effectively what we are now allowing some private companies to do in the modern version of the public square, but with computers and software rather than bricks and concrete.

This is a good analogy, although I would note that exercising oversight over the algorithms that shape how the modern public square functions is certain to be more fraught and controversial than regulation of sewer and power lines, especially in a country like the Unites States.

One potential solution that never seems to get discussed is old-school trust-busting. Why not break up Twitter into baby bells?

150 years ago someone said "It's a bad idea to argue in the press with someone who owns one". I guess that is no longer true, everyone is a content creator now.

You require a legal basis for that sort of thing. You can't just do it because it feels like the right move for society.

Can someone fill me in on when Twitter became the pre-eminent platform for discussing politics? I kinda missed that shift and learnt about it only during Trump. Was it the bitesize 140 character limit that appealed to people?

I think the first and easiest thing they could do would be for the gov't to establish stronger privacy rights.

In Canada we have the CRTC which was very active in that arena and then came SM and they just completely abdicated any responsibility and allowed the companies to dictate.

A simple law saying that 'when dealing with any Canadian citizen you cannot get citizens to blanket default all their privacy rights away' and then listing areas prhobited, I think would be a big step.

There is no reason a basic Calculator free App downloaded should demanding permission to be able to 'read all your data on your phone', 'add, change or replace any apps', 'use your mic or camera unbeknowst to you for listening, pictures or videos' etc and so many of the blanket demands they are all permission banking.

Permissions Banking is the entire reason for free Apps but restricting such would be a great first step for big SM as well.